|
FEATURE ARTICLE
May 2007
Air Force struggles to define future airlift needs
By Breanne Wagner
 The Air Force is walking a political tightrope as it tries to garner support for multibillion-dollar investments in new cargo aircraft while it copes with cost overruns and tightening budgets. Service officials assert that the ongoing wars and planned increases to the size of the Army and the Marine Corps will result in growing demands for military airlift.
Transport aircraft — both long-haul strategic and short-range tactical assets — have been the source of contentious debate on Capitol Hill in recent weeks. These aircraft are critical wartime resources but also garner interest for the wealth of jobs they provide to lawmakers’ home districts.
During the past two years, the Air Force has been seeking to end production of its workhorse strategic transport, the C-17 Globemaster, as it works to modernize its aging C-5 long-haul Galaxy aircraft. Additionally, it is looking to buy new C-130J tactical transports and a new smaller cargo aircraft, to replace dozens of aging C-130s that lawmakers won’t allow the service to retire.
As Air Force officials are fond of saying, the service is trying to find the “right mix” of airlift assets. Yet the right mix concept is being held hostage by a host of problems.
A study of global military transportation needs in 2005 led the Air Force to set a requirement of about 300 strategic transport planes. That would include 180 C-17s and 112 upgraded C-5’s, said Capt. Anna Carpenter, an Air Force spokesperson. That combination was considered to be within “acceptable risk,’” she said.
Since then, however, the fleet of C-17s has been worn down by the demands of ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is “approaching the end of its service life at an accelerated rate,” Carpenter noted. The Air Force recently estimated it needs anywhere between 292 and 383 strategic transport aircraft.
Last year, California lawmakers saved Boeing’s C-17 production line in Long Beach from a projected shutdown in 2009 by adding an extra $2.1 billion to the Air Force budget for 10 more aircraft — boosting the size of the fleet to 190. Boeing again announced in February that it might be forced to close the line unless more aircraft are bought.
The Air Force asked for two more C-17s in its 2008 “unfunded priorities” list, Carpenter said.
But the fiscal year 2008 budget only provided $653.5 million for removing and shipping C-17 tooling and equipment into storage, a Pentagon budget document said, which essentially prepares for the plant’s closure.
Plans to stop buying C-17s, however, are tied to the progress of the C-5 modernization program. The 2008 budget includes $602 million for these efforts, but cost overruns may require the Air Force to either cancel the program or reduce the number of modernized C-5s.
The C-5 avionics modernization program, or AMP, outfits the airplane with digital equipment, a new flight control system and safety gear, among other upgrades. The Government Accountability Office said the program cost has increased by 17 percent since the start and has been delayed one year because of failure rates and low reliability.
The cost overruns could amount to $100 million per airplane, said Loren Thompson, military and defense industry analyst at the Lexington Institute, a think tank in Arlington, Va.
GAO also cited the C-5 reliability enhancement and re-engining program, which can’t be implemented until the avionics upgrades are completed. GAO said engine replacement costs have increased by 16 percent and the program delayed two years.
“Cost growth will not be fully known until the Air Force completes a detailed cost estimating effort by July 2007,” Carpenter explained.
Despite program flaws and murky pricing issues, a small but vocal group of lawmakers on Capitol Hill are fighting to maintain funds for the C-5 upgrades.
Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif. has both the C-17 and the C-5 in her district at Travis Air Force Base, Calif. She is pushing to modernize the whole Galaxy fleet. Tauscher said the U.S. military has leased the Russian AN-124 aircraft for oversized cargo because there weren’t enough C-5s. “The fact that the Pentagon is outsourcing missions to Russia is ridiculous,” Tauscher said.
Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., whose district includes the Lockheed facility where C-5s are receiving upgrades, has shown his support for the heavy lift aircraft.
The Air Force has three options, Thompson said. “It can modernize all the C-5s, retire the oldest 25 to 30 Galaxy aircraft or retire all C-5s and use the C-17 as replacement.”
Right now, the Air Force cannot retire any of the C-5s because of language in the 2004 National Defense Authorization Act, Carpenter said. Once one C-5 completes the engine modernization program, the Air Force must inform Congress, which will then evaluate the possibility of retirement. The Air Force doesn’t expect this to happen until 2012.
“Flexibility to manage the strategic airlift fleet would enable the secretary and chief of staff of the Air Force to make informed, timely decisions with regard to proper fleet mix,” Carpenter said.
While lawmakers battle it out over strategic lift, the Air Force also is making a case for an increase in the size of the tactical lift fleet, specifically the C-130J Hercules aircraft.
“From talking with senior Air Force leadership, they are much more absorbed with buying more C-130Js than they are the C-17,” Thompson said.
The 2005 study noted the Air Force needed a minimum of 395 Hercules aircraft. The service has 11 C-130s grounded and 37 with restrictions because of wing box cracks from the stress of wartime deployment. The fleet stands at 503 aircraft without those that are grounded, but the Air Force is in the process of retiring C-130Es, said Maj. Gen. Thomas Kane, Air Mobility Command director of strategic plans, requirements and programs. The Air Force wants to replace the retired aircraft with C-130Js.
Two years ago, the emergency war budget added three C-130Js to the Air Force’s fleet, which increased a planned buy to 82, Carpenter said. Currently, 55 C-130Js are fielded.
For fiscal year 2008, the Air Force received $686 million to buy nine additional C-130Js. Starting in 2009, funding drops off to $48 million because this year marks the end of the five-year C-130J procurement plan the Air Force signed with Lockheed Martin. But the Air Force wants to sign another multi-year procurement with the Navy — which flies the KC-130J refueling aircraft — and Special Operations Command — which flies the WC-130 weather reconnaissance aircraft and the EC-130 electronic warfare weapon system, Thompson said.
The Air Force requested 15 more C-130Js in its fiscal year 2008 emergency war budget. In the fiscal 2007 war supplemental, the service requested seven additional aircraft. Of these 22 total airplanes, 17 are being considered for funding in the House of Representatives, Carpenter said.
The service planned to buy 150 C-130Js until a Pentagon budget document issued in 2004 tried to stop the buy at 46, Kane explained. The decision was later rescinded and the Air Force is now authorized to buy 75 C-130Js. “Our adjusted plan is to field 127 C-130Js and AMP (avionics modernization program) C-130Hs,” Kane said. But he noted that the C-130J procurement account was cut by $2.9 billion.
Help may be on the way for tactical airlift if the Army-Air Force joint cargo aircraft program survives. The aircraft is meant to replace the Army’s C-23 Sherpa and supplement the Air Force’s C-130 Hercules capability. Unofficial estimates indicate the Air Force could buy as many as 70 aircraft.
“We see the JCA as part of the future intra theater fleet and are still evaluating what the exact fleet mix should look like,” Carpenter said.
Two industry teams — Raytheon and European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company’s, and L-3 Communications partnered with Alenia — submitted bids. A winner could be announced this month.
It remains unclear, however, whether the Air Force and the Army ultimately will commit to a common aircraft. “The two services have different goals for the joint cargo aircraft,” Thompson asserted. “The Air Force wants to use the money to buy more C-130s.”
Please email your comments to BWagner@ndia.org
Back To Top
|
Search Tips
